Nevermind that! According to various sportswriters (Jon Heyman, I'm looking your unenlightened way), he wasn't "dominant."
Nevermind also finishing his career with the third highest strikeout total of all time, gifting to the game's history possibly the most devestating overhand curveball ever, and finishing in the top 10 in the league in WHIP 11 times. "Dominant" apparently equals coastal sportwriters from the 1970's, who knew absolutely nothing about guys from the Indians, Twins or Angels other than their W-L records, miraculously giving you their Cy Young votes.
I'm generally on board with OF's analysis of other deserving players who should have made it before Dawson, with a couple quibbles: I remain unsold on Trammell, who I recall being a very good to excellent player but who I'd find it a lot easier to leave out of a list of the top 10 shortstops of all time than Larkin. Also, I'm a long way from thinking Jack Morris should be in. Guy's got a lifetime 3.90 ERA, with a 105 ERA+. That's not a Hall of Famer. This is coming from a Twins fan who was at Game 7 in '91. I acknowledge that and other postseason performances (as well as the career postseason ERA of 3.80), but they shouldn't overshadow the pedestrian base numbers he sports. His best season saw a 133 ERA+. Just by way of example, Blyleven, who's apparently the textbook borderline starting pitcher (don't get me started on guys like Sutter and Smith getting in before him) had seasons with higher ERA+'s
7 times. Not that that's the be-all, end-all of pitching stats, of course, but it's illustrative.
I'm trying to think of the equivalent for a position player, but inducting Morris might be something like inducting Joe Carter because of his homerun off Mitch Williams. Take that away and what are you left with? (Other than that Mal has a problem with the mid-'80's Detroit Tigers, I guess.
)
Back to Larkin, I'm glad to see him get the acclaim he's getting. I never thought he'd become one of the "how can they not be voting for this guy?" guys, as I thought he was greatly underappreciated while he was playing. OF mentioned his being overshadowed by Ripken and Jeter, but don't forget his being overshadowed by Ozzie, too. There were three or four years at the beginning of Larkin's career where to any impartial observer he was clearly the best SS in the NL, but his reputation suffered from Oz still being around. Anyway, I modeled myself after Larkin as a young shortstop, he was my favorite player as a teenager and I'm gratified to see him get over 50% of the votes on his first try. This is why it's a good thing they wait awhile before voting on players after their retirement - with all the blossoming of great power-hitting SS's the last decade, Larkin's career needed to be seen in the context of its own time and the times before it, and not solely in comparison with Jeter and ARod.